October, 17 2017, 11:45am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dylan Voorhees 207.462.3221,,dylan@nrcm.org
Mainers Celebrate 45th Anniversary of Clean Water Act
Describe Enormous Progress and Serious Threats to Clean Water in Maine.
Lewiston, ME
Today on the banks of the Androscoggin, once labeled the most polluted river in America, a diverse group of Mainers described the importance of the Clean Water Act. The Act became law on October 18, 1972, when Congress voted to override President Nixon's veto of the bill. This landmark law was a crowning accomplishment for Maine U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie, who grew up in Rumford and was riled into action because our rivers were being treated as open sewers. His determination to act resulted in one of the nation's most important environmental laws.
"Senator Muskie's leadership put the nation on a path that brought life back to dead waterways, protected human health, increased recreation opportunities, expanded economic opportunities in riverside communities, improved real-estate property values, and contributed to the quality of life of millions of Americans nationwide. For that, we are enormously grateful," said NRCM Executive Director Lisa Pohlmann.
Before the Clean Water Act, Maine had no sewage treatment plants. The stench along our polluted waterways depressed real estate values and left retail stores in communities near polluted waters deserted in the summer months. The sulfite-laden air blackened silver products in jewelry stores. The toxic fumes peeled paint off buildings, while the odors, which were noticed 20 miles from the river, sickened people. And when the weather was hot, dissolved oxygen in the river plummeted, killing essentially all fish and wildlife in the Androscoggin, as well as the Kennebec and Penobscot.
"We have come an enormous way since the Clean Water Act became law. Today is a day for celebrating that progress, acknowledging the vital role that Senator Muskie and the state of Maine played in passing the Clean Water Act, and focusing on the threats to clean water that require continued leadership from Maine's elected officials," added Pohlmann.
Bates College Chemistry Professor Walter Lawrence played a significant role in helping Senator Muskie and state leaders understand how polluted our rivers had become. Lawrence produced detailed reports based on daily water samples from hundreds of sampling stations along the Androscoggin. Through the 1960s, Maine's industrial rivers were classified as Class D, described in state regulations as: "primarily for use in transportation of wastes."
Although the U.S. House and Senate voted nearly unanimously in 1972 for the Clean Water Act, President Nixon vetoed the bill on October 17, 1972. Veto override votes by the Senate and House occurred on October 17 and 18, 1972, respectively. The Senate voted 52-12 to override, with 36 Senators not voting. The House voted 247-23 to override, and the bill became law.
The Androscoggin and other Maine rivers and lakes are cleaner today than they were 40 years ago thanks to the Clean Water Act, which gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to force polluting industries and towns to treat waste and sewage before discharging it.
Now, these basic safeguards and other federal laws that protect Maine waters are under attack. Here are a few examples; see attached document for more:
- Trump's EPA budget proposed the elimination of non-point source pollution grants, which states like Maine depend on to reduce polluted runoff that includes pesticides, fertilizers, and other nutrients. This type of runoff represents the largest pollution threat to Maine's lakes. Trump's EPA budget also proposed deep cuts to state grants for water monitoring, assessment, and management.
- Scott Pruitt's EPA is leading an attack on the Clean Water Rule, which extends Clean Water Act protections to smaller waterways, tributaries, and wetlands. One-third of Mainers get their drinking water from sources that rely on small streams protected by this rule.
- Pruitt is also delaying multiple rules that reduce airborne mercury and other air pollution from power plants. Mercury is a neurotoxin found in Maine's lakes, rivers, fish, and wildlife, primarily due to power plant pollution from other states. Maine depends on strong federal laws and the EPA to limit pollution coming from other states.
"We urge Senators Collins and King to continue to support strong federal clean water protections, including full funding of the Environmental Protection Agency," said Pohlmann. "Clean, healthy waterways are vital to our day-to-day lives in Maine. They help ensure safe drinking water, suitable habitat for fish and other wildlife, and recreational opportunities that make Maine a special place in which to live, work, play, and visit."
For more information about the threats facing Maine's clean water, see the attached document.
Dick Anderson, a young fisheries biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in the 1960s, today recalls how polluted the Androscoggin had become. "We paddled the Androscoggin from the New Hampshire border to Brunswick, and it was a revolting task. Every bit of waste and sewage was dumped into the river. At least seven paper mills were dumping untreated waste into the river, as were tanneries and towns. We traveled through this disgusting mess, and look at it now! We can feel proud today on the 45th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, written and championed by our great Maine Senator, Edmund Muskie."
Rebecca Swanson Conrad, President and CEO of the Lewiston-Auburn Metro Chamber of Commerce, today described how important the revitalized, cleaner Androscoggin River is for both Lewiston and Auburn. "I marvel at how far we have come over the past 50 years. Look at the investments we've made in the Bates Mill, Auburn Riverwalk, and the businesses, hotels, and homes along this majestic river. In the 1960s, we were not considering the environmental impact of the river on our future economy. The Androscoggin was dead, but it has come back to life in no small part because of Senator Muskie and the Clean Water Act. And with that recovery, Lewiston and Auburn have made the river central to our economic future. We are so thankful for the many people, organizations, and elected leaders who helped deliver the great progress that we have seen. It stands as a testament to how important a clean environment is to a healthy economy."
Lynne Lewis, Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics at Bates College, today spoke about the economic benefits that clean water provides to Maine. "The Clean Water Act provides billions of dollars in economic benefits annually, by protecting water that we drink, live near, and fish and play in. For a state like Maine that is literally filled with rivers, lakes, streams, and coastline, clean water provides enormous economic value to our state in the form of reduced health care costs, improved recreational opportunities and tourism, property values, and tax revenues to the state. From my research and that of others, it is clear that clean water significantly increases waterfront property values for both homeowners and businesses. Thriving businesses and community events take place along rivers such as this. These revenue sources did not exist before the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act has resulted in a rebounding of river herring and other sea-run fish, contributing to the health of our Gulf of Maine fisheries. Our lakes contribute an estimated $3.5 billion to Maine's economy annually, supporting 52,000 jobs, and clean coastal waters support the thousands of lobstering and fishing jobs that deliver landings of more than $700 million annually."
Natalie Lounsbury, who grew up in Auburn, recalls attending meetings with her mother, Bonnie, where the discussions focused on "color, odor, and foam." Natalie and Bonnie now have a farm along the Androscoggin in Turner and Natalie is also a PhD student in natural resources at the University of New Hampshire. Today Natalie said, "Nearly all water that reaches rivers passes through or over soil. As we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and as we continue our efforts to protect Maine's waters, it's important to support land managers and farmers in implementing practices like cover crops and riparian buffers that help keep our waters clean."
The Natural Resources Council of Maine is the leading nonprofit membership organization working statewide for clean air and water; healthy people, wildlife and forests; and clean energy solutions. NRCM harnesses the power of science, the law, and the voices of more than 12,000 supporters to protect the nature of Maine. Visit NRCM online at www.nrcm.org.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


